Opposition Grows to FIFA World Cup Sell-Off Plan
Opposition is growing to FIFA president Gianni Infantino’s proposal to sell stakes in a new commercial entity controlling World Cup-related revenues. UEFA has called an emergency meeting to consider a coordinated response, including a possible European boycott of FIFA competitions, arguing that the plan would “sell the soul” of football and give private investors influence over the game’s most valuable assets.
The proposed FIFA Forward Enterprise would combine World Cup broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing and licensing income, with FIFA valuing it at about $20 billion and seeking to raise a further $10 billion. UEFA, Concacaf and the Asian Football Confederation say they were not properly consulted; together they represent 143 of FIFA’s 211 member associations, although support is not uniform. FIFA members have until 19 September to seek an initial $20 million payment, while uncertainty remains over whether approval needs a simple majority or a 75% vote.
- UEFA considers boycotting FIFA events over proposed World Cup stake sale.
- FIFA hopes the commercial entity could raise $10 billion.
- Major confederations say they were not consulted.
New here? Start with this
FIFA is the international governing body for football, and the World Cup is football's biggest tournament, held every four years. The World Cup generates enormous sums through selling broadcasting rights, sponsorships, ticket sales and other commercial activities.
FIFA's president, Gianni Infantino, has proposed creating a new company that would control all World Cup-related commercial revenues and sell stakes in it to private investors. The plan would raise billions in additional revenue for FIFA, with the new company estimated to be worth about $20 billion.
Football's other major regional organisations argue they were not properly consulted about this major change to the sport's governance. They worry that allowing private investors to own parts of World Cup operations could give outsiders too much influence over how football's most prestigious competition is run.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
FIFA could argue that bringing broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing and licensing into one commercial entity would make the World Cup’s value clearer to investors and help raise funds for football development. A substantial upfront payment to member associations could support the game worldwide, while outside investment might bring expertise and new revenue without changing how competitions are run.
The case against
Critics could argue that selling stakes in an entity controlling the World Cup’s key revenues risks giving private investors lasting influence over decisions central to football’s future. They may also see the lack of proper consultation with major confederations and uncertainty over the required approval threshold as reasons to question the plan’s legitimacy, even if it promises immediate funding for members.